Contents/ Cc

Sommaire So
PapBns/Anrrcrps
P.rprns/AnTICLES

RandyAllenHarris,Zélie Introduction:Rhetoricof Ilruno Latourand

Guéveland IsabelleClerc Sciencein Canada P.roloFabbri

RandyAllenHarrisZélie il Introductior-r: Bruno Latour and Paolo

Guéveland IsabelleClerc La rhétoriquede la science Fabbri (Translationby
( T r a d u c t i o:nC h r i s t i a n e au Canada SarahCr,rmmins)
Cadrin et ZélieGuével)

JoyceParsons LJ Pathos,AIDS,and Public CélineBeaudet

Policy:An Analysisof the
Strategyon HIV/
Canadiar.r
AIDS:MovingForward

FrancesRanger 38 Raceand Objectivityin the GinetteDemers,Isabelle

Writing of J.P.Rushtonand Collombat,Sylvainf obin
His Critics et ValérieRichard

NorEs
ChristineTrott 52 RhetoricalInventionin the
Discoveryof Insulin
MichaelA.Overinston

JudySegal 67 What is a Rhetoricof

D e a t h ?E n d - o f -L i f e D e c i -
s i o n - M a k i n ga t a P s y c h i -
atricHospital
ents/ Contents/
nalre Sommaire

Peprns/AnrrcLEs

Introduction:Rhetoricof Bruno Latourand 9l La rhétoriquede la science

:
Sciencein Canada PaoloFabbri Pouvoiret devoirdansun
articlede scienceexacte

Introduction: BrunoLatourand Paolo 119 The Rhetoricof Science:

La rhétoriquede la science Fabbri(Translationby Authority and Duty in an
au Canada SarahCummins) Article from the Exact
Sciences

AIDS,andPublic
Pathos, CélineBeaudet 139 La vulgarisationscientifique
Policy:AnAnalysis
of the est-ellepossible? Laffaire
CanadianStrategyon HIV/ Sokal: grandeurset misères
AIDS:MovingForward de I'interdisciplinarité

Raceand Objectivityin the GinetteDemers,Isabelle 153 Évolutionde la langue

Writing of ]. P.Rushtonand Collombat,SylvainJobin scientifique
dansdeux
His Critics et ValérieRichard périodiquescanadiens

Nores
RhetoricalInventionin the
of Insulin
Discovery
MichaelA.Overinston t70 Sociologyar-rdRhetoric:
SomePersonalMusines
What is a Rhetoricof
D e a t h ?E n d - o f - L i f eD e c i -
s i o n - M a k i n ga t a P s y c h i -
a t r i cH o s p i t a l
fScience/Larhétoriquede la science ll5
Bruno Latour and PaoloFabbri
-

The Rhetoric of Science:Authority and Duty in an

Article from the ExactSciences

Bruno Ltrtotr
EcoledesMines de Pnris

PttoloFabltri
BolognaUrtircrsitl'

Translatedby
SnrahCunmritts
Unit'ersitéLoval

Thispapcr,an inportont tronsltttiorr of o 1981articlepublislrcdin Fretrclt*,

is orrt'Ltfthe torlie st criticol closercudingso.fa scientilic tcxt, tuul orrco.fthe
of rheto-
nu)strct'cûling.Thcouthorsblcnda contirrcntalliterary-criticttlserrse
sociologT'to
ric with a British cpisrcnrclosicol o sigifrcant but typicol
exarrrine
scienti.ficttrticle.Tlrc anoll'sisis noteworthl't'or its ret'elotionof tlrc deeply
texttutlildture of scincc, .for its triltmefit of autlrority as the right ro (l-sscrf,
osser-
.for itsintroduction of the notioil o.filrcd(ilitieswith rcsPectto scit:tttific
(a
tions cotrcepttlutt Latrntrond Wottlgar's Laboratory Life would bring to
wide ntrrcncl'), and fttr the generalv'q'in wlrich it opensup scientific dis-
cotûseto critical arnll'sis. Alsontttewttrthf is the ltricf postscriptttsscnrbled
b1,the originalpublislrcrsto givc vtticeto the ltnil)ragctlrc scientificouthors
tookotrr Latorrrnnd Fabbri'sttnoly5i5.

It is often said that scienceis "the set of true statements"(Wittgenstein)and

that scientificst,vleis characterizedby irrrpersonalstatelnentssuch as "SubstanceA
iicts olt substauce8." To define scientiflc st,vlethis way is ttl confuse scienceas it is
preser.rted in textbooksr,viththe kind of scientificwriting exchangedr,vithinthe fleld.
Ratherthan analysingscientificstylein its popularizedftlrnl, rvepreferinsteadto go
through,and lead readersthrough, an articlesituatedat the"frontier" ofa particular
science.Our airr-ris not to proposea theorv of scientificstylebut to encouragephi-

Tèchnosrvle
rol. I 6, no t Hiver 20(X) \bl. 16,No. I 2000N'inter
Technosn'le
I l6 The Rhetoricof Science llruno Latour anclPaoLlFabbli

losophersand sociologiststo anall'sescientiflctextsas they are actuallyn'ritten.We

haveselectedan article iu neuroendocrinology,wl.richappearedin I 962 in the Contptes
for our purposes
of the Paris Acirdenrvof Science**.This article lvas it-le'al
rerrrlrrs
inrag
Hagiographic
the rnair'tproduction of a laboratory
becauseit cor-rstitutes rvhose prinrary product is
articles(a group of ten Ph.D.'sproduces40 articlesper ycar otr average).Orte"popu- ..SCIEN
larizing"articleis producedfbr forty "pioneering"articles.In lddition to articles,the
laboratoryalsoproducesinfbrmal commun icationsbetweenresearchers,
researchers
rvhich are settt to other
and technicianstrained in the laboratorr.,trnd sr.rbstances
canonization
researchersfor study'. (
'l'he
analysispresentedhere is a crossbetu,eeua studv in the sociologyof sci-
'l'he consecratioll
enceand a semiologicalstudy. sociologyof science,particularlyin the English-
researchers'
sfreakingworld, has lorrg used articlesas the Lrasicuuit fbr calcr.rlating RECOG
productivity and fbr defrningtl.relimits and rneasuringthe grou'th of variousdisci-
plirres.' +I
Publicationsof tl.reInstitute for ScientiflcInfcrrrnationin Philadelphiaprovide acculT)
nraterialfor nunrerousstudiesin tl-resociologl of science,in particular the Scicnce of auth
articlehas leceived.
Cittttiortlrrlcx, lvhicl-rlistsannLrallythe nurrrberof citationseacl-r
A sinrilarindex existsfor the socialsciences.'fhereviervCurrentContetttspublishesa
rveekll,sumrnirryof this literature.

C
This diagram presentsthe four mosl common approachesto scielrtific
P I
literature.For practicalreasons,which will be expltined elsewhere,
scientificlcrowledgecau be consideredas a network of articlesthat
*l
H
AJ
i-1
I
i n f l u e n c eo n e a n o t h e rt h r o u g h t h e i n t e r m e d i a r yo f s c i e n t i s t s( c o l u m nC ) .
But it is also possible(as shown in column B) to considerlhat scientists
influenceone another through the internrediaryof articles,therebl'
z/ èO C
o b t a i n i n gr e c o g n i t i o r rI .n t h i s v i e r v ',. r r t i c l eesn g e n d eor t h e r a r t i c l e sa n d
researclrers exchangeonly prestige.Theseare the nvo paths taken by the
sociologvofscieuce.They differ front the usual analvsisthat seesScience
d, Y, I
a s b e i n gm a d e u p o f e i t h e rS c i e n t i s t(sw h e nt h e r ea r eo n l l ' â u t h o r s )o r
Knowledge(when there are otrly ttetworksof articles).Columns A and D usualimage I
C
s u m m a r i z et h e s et s ' o r v a y si n r v h i c hs c i e n t i f i ca c t i v i t f i s s u b s u m e de i t h e ri l r of the
individuals or in productions.In this article,our approachis of course
different from the two corrmon anal,vses, but also differs from the two
scientist
pâths takell up until now b1'the sociologl of science,becortsewe consider
both the strategiesof authors ând the interactionsamortg texts (the ziSzag
linein thediagranr).

lechnostvleVol' l(r, No. I 2000\\'inl

T e c b n o s t v l e\ ' o l . 1 6 , n o I H i v e r 1 0 0 0
 The Rhetoricof Science 11,7
llruno Latour and PaoloFabbri

textsas tliey are actuallyrvritten.

\te
vhiclr appearedin 1962nt the
Contptes
is article was iclealfbr our purposes
laboratoryrvhoseprimary product irnages
Hagiographic imagesof sclence
andsociographic
is
Jesper yearolr average).One,,popu_
g" articles.In addition to articles,
the "SCIENTIST" KNOWLEDGE
ons betweenresearchers, researchers
substancesrvhich are sent to
other
canonizatioll textbooks
veena study in the sociology ns
ofsci_ applicatio
scrence, particularlyin the tnglish_ consecration culture
sic unit for calculatingresearchers,
tsuringthe growth of various
disci_

rlcrrmationin philadelphraprovide
rf science,in particular tl.re accumulation
Science
fcitations eacharticlehas received. of authority
evrewCurrent Contentspublishes
a

-
lonlnlon approachesto scientific
r r.villbe explainedelsewhere,
(1)
t as a network of articlesthat : : i si-l. )
s
ô
e r m e d i a r yo f s c i e n t i s t s( c o l u m n
C).
umn B) to considerthat scientists GV
!H
:rmediary of articles,thereby etr

rcleserrgenderother articlesand <èo

r,i É
>ç 4Ê z
eseare the two paths taketrby
the
o
fhe usual analysisthat seesSci.,rce
r h e n l h e r ea r eo r r l ya u t h o r s o
EH 0)
L
)r 0,.)
r k r o l a r t i e l e : ) .C o l u m n sA a r r t i
D
entific activity is subsumedeither
irr
rticle,our approachis of course
:s,but also differs from the two
gl of science,becausewe consider
t l e r a r l i o n sa m o l l g t e x f \ t t h e z i g z a g

T è c h r r o s t y l e\ 1 ) 1 .1 6 , n o I
Hiver 1000 Iechnosn'le\bl. 16,No. I 2000 \\'inter
118 The Rhetoricof Science l]runo Latour and PaoloFabbri

ln all of thesestudiesonly citations are considered,never the colltent of the of peers,in this particularcaseb
for its part, doesindeedstudy
articlesand certainlynot their style.rSemioticanal,vsis, in France,by the Centre natiotl
the frrrrnsof texts but the nrethoclsdevelopetl'.lre not applied to texts of natural searchcentre).The Collègede Fr
although sonreattenrptshavebeen uradeto lppll'thern to discoursein the
sciences, i r r r t il r d r t t i t t i s t r a l i vI iec i i i t i c st o t
hunranitir's.'\\'e rverethus interestedin using rr.rodern
literitrvanalysisto bring the rvhichis in addition a rarecolttlr
sociologvof scienceinto the heart of scientificarticles,and to thereby determine c r r l e u l i r t i orrt rt t ds o r t t e t ti t e si t t tr i l
*'hether the Iiteratureof the exactsciencesobc-vsgeneralrLrlc-s
valid firr all ftrrn"rs
of is there accessto this instrumen
literature, Thus, evertbeforereading
obiect that nrakesexplicit refer
Sociologicalmarkers ( selectionof the discipline,the ti
The article \\'epreserlthere,like all othels,shorvsthe signsof variouselerrents (selectionof the gatekeePer,
the
*,hoseinfluencethe sociologistattemptsto weigh.The text containssix rnirrkersthat refersto a rvhole setof conf'lictst
e x p l i c i t l l , r e f e r t o t h e c o n t l i t i o n s u n d e r r v h i c h i t i v a s p r o d u c e d .T h e k e y r v o r c l of this pieceof kltowledgestan
"t^-oocRi^'otoÇtE" / endocri,ro/og, allon'sthe articleto be slottedinto variousclassifi- t,ue of the conditionsh'ereto vA
cation systems.Hoivever,the article belongsprciperll'to neuroendocrinology, a 30-
year-olddisciplineborn ofa crossbetrveentl\.o others,rvhich is not yet sufficiently
Rhetoric and communit
rvell-establishecl
to haveits orvn index in thc Corrptcsre trtils,althrrughit hasits orvn ln going through the text
journals, r.rnivelsitychairs,and conferences. In the text, the rvorcl"endocrirtologie" conttnon usage;we definethertr
r.narksthe history through rvhich disciplincsare oprened,beconreinstitutionalised, "pragmatic"dinrensionof the te
and establishtheir borders.5The order of presentationof the firur authorsreflectsthe rvritten- and its strictly textua

frou'errelationshipsivithin the g,roup;theserelirtior-rships,

of g,reatinterestto Arneri- nrtrstbe nrirdebetweetrthe sys
can sociologists,
are ir f urrctitlnof the nricrosocioklgycrfthe lesearchtcarn.u t h t r l ' ( h o o s errv h c t h e (r t r l l ( ) tt ( )i l
An asteriskrefèrsthe reaclerto the date"23 juillet 1961"/ lub' 23,1961,the clate "ilssertiorts" ( t;rtortce;-s), which ma
of the Acadénriedessciences
sessior.r
rvherethe paperwasprescuted.tThis date,which u'e list all the ntarkersrvith rvhic
is diflèrent from the publication date, allorvsfor the settleurentof disputesabout It can be seenthat, contrarYto u
priority. Sinceat the fiontier of a sciencetherecarrexistno undateclidea,the tinre lag A
is not in the leastimpersor-ral.
the clateof receptionand the dateof p ublicationof irn irrticleis an irnportant
betw,een ti()n must be rnade betweeu prr

titctorrvhenchoosingir iourn irl.The CorrPte-irctklus.lreknorvnfor publishingrvithin nray modi$' a pKrposition.Last

a f'eivrveeks.
The "Note" - dated, titled, assigned,and indexed- is in addition t e x t i t s e l f o r t o ( , t h e rt e x t s .
"présentépar J\'1.
RobertCourrier" / prcsentciby Mr. RobertCùurricr.The Note had The most striking featureo
to go thrcrughthis nrenrberof the acadernvin order to be reirdbefore the authnrs' On
it is riddled with refèrences.
peers.N1r.Crrulligçis ilrnongthtise-knorvn in Englishirs"gatckeepers" - rvhode- viclethe coiltextofthe article.T
cide whether or not certirinauthors appear.Their porver is often considerable.
On ingsthat the Note rvill discuss,a
page5 ofthe articletherearet\\roother r.narkels, to the research
referringrespectively refèrredto by a nunrber:"prépa
firnd and to the institution that nradethe researchpossible.The ru.r-rount
ol-nrt'rte)'is dt- la rnéthodede lllcKenzie(9)
not nrentiortc'd,
but the grilnt uLlnlberis.This nunrber representsa conrplicirtedsys- retèrenccsare ttr lvorks outside 1
tem urtderu,hichthe researchgroup'sproposallvasevaluatecl
and acceptedbv a groutr-r F ( ) rc x J m P l et,h e r v h o l co f 1 ' r 1 1
The table itself refersto the figu

T e c h r t t r s t v l e\ ' o l . 1 6 , n . ' I H i v e r l ( X ) 0
\trl. It',No.I l00t)$'intt
lechnostvle
 The Ilhetoric of Science
: considered,never the content
of the
anall.sis,
fbr its part, doesindeedstu<1y
:dr are not applied to texts of natural
radeto apply thern to discourse
in the
I ntodent literary analysisto bring the
flc articles,and to thereby determine
eysgeueralrules valid fbr all fornrs
of
;, shorvsthe signsof variouselelnents
gh.The text containssix ntarkers
that
ich it r,vasproduced. The keyworcl
icleto be slottedinto variousclassifi_
operly kr neuroendocrinolog,v,
r others,ivhich is not yet sufficiently
' t t p t . ' sr t , t t r l u s ,
a l t h o u g hi t h l s i t : r , w r r
the text, the rvord ,,enclocrinokrgie,,
e opened,beconreinstitutionalised,
ation ofthe four authorsreflects
the
ionships,ofgreat interestto Arneri_
rlogyof the researchteam.,,
juillet 1962",/
Jtily 23,1962,rhe clare
)er \.vaspresentcd.:This date,lvhich
r the settlenrentof disputesabout
t existno undatedidea,the tinre lag
icationof an articleis an important
lrsareknorvn for publishingrvithin
ecl,and indexed- is in acldition
NIr. Robert Courrier. The Note
hacl
cler to be r.eadbefore the authors,
nglishas"gatekeepers,, - rvho de_
r porver is often considerirble.
On
1èrringrespectively to the research
possible.The arr.rour.rt
of rrroneyrs
lber representsa complicated
sys-
evaluatedand acceptedb1,agroup
T è c h n o s t r ' l ev o l . 1 6 , t r o I H t v e r
2(XX)
Bruno Latour anclPaoloFabbri l19
of peers,in this particularcaseboth by ofÏcials in the U.S.departnrentof healthand,
i1 France,by the Celtre national de la recherchescientifique(national scietrtificre-
searchceltre). The Collègede Franceis the institution that agreedto providephysical
and adrninistrativelacilitiesto the group. Uut the spacegrantedis a socializedspace,
which is in addition .l rarecomntodity.Around this spacetherealwaysforrnsa rvebof
get so rnuch space? Why
calculationand sonretimesintrigue:Whv did this researcher
facility provided?
is thereâccessto this instrumetrt?Why is this adnlinistrative
of sciencefinds a very rich
Thus, even before reading tl-rearticle,tl-resc'rciologist
obiect that nlakesexplicit referenceto a trvin set of strategies:those of the author
(selectiolof the discipline,the title, the timing, the journal) and thoseof institutions
the funders,the laboratory).The article also implicitly
(selectionof the gatekeeper,
that do not appearassuch in the text.The production
refersto a rvholesetof cor-rflicts
of this pieceof knorvledgestirndsat the intersectionof all of thesepractices.lf an)'
one of the conditionswereto var)',the articlewe havebefbreus would be different.
a 30_
Rhetoric and communication
In going through the text, we \,villbe using severalterlns that are not yet in
coulron usage;we definethenr briefl,vhere.A distinctiortmust be Inirdebetlveenthe
"pragn-ratic"dirnensiott of the text - b1'lvhor-r-r,
for u'hotrl, and for what retrsonsit is
its strictl,vtextuiil dinrension.Ilut rvithin the text itself,a distinctiort
written-and
the systernof "erlunciatitlrl"(énoilciûtiorr), rvherebythe au-
must be nrade betrveen
the pragrnatic dintension, and the systenlof
thor chogseslvhetheror not to introduce
"assertigns"(é1o4cd-s), rvhichrnakesrto referenceto tl-reauthor.L-rthe following table,
lvith which the author makeshis own Presencefelt in the text'
we list all the r.narkers
this text,rvhilescientific,
It can be seeuthat, contrary tç rvhatis conrntonlyirssultted,
Amor-rg the assertions(értnrtcés)
thet-nselves,a distinc-
is 1ot irr the leastir-npersonal.
"nltldalizations" - that is, lvhatever
tion rnust be made betweenpropositionsand
any referellceto the
may modify tr proposition.Last,the tertrt"attaphor"designates
( ) r t ( ) ( ) t h c rt c x t i .
t e x ti t s e l f
The ntost striking featureof this text is obvious frot.nskimnting through it briefly:
On page5 of the Note are listedten references that pro-
it is riddled with references.
vide the contextofthe article.The first se\renofthese are previouslypublishedrvrit-
ings that the Note $'ill discuss,anclthe lastthree aredescriptionsof Inethodsthat are
"préparéconlme dans (8)" I preparedas in (8), or"adaptée
referredto by a nur.r.rber:
de la rrréthodede lvlcKenzie(9)" / adaPtedlronr McKcnzie'snrcthod (9)' All of these
operatewithin the text.
are to lvorksoutsidethe text,but other references
references
the rvholeofparagraph 5 is a referenceto the tableon petge3 ofthe text.
For exan.rple,
The table itselfrefersto the figure on page4. The tableand the figure rvereproduced
\''ol.16,No. I 2000Winter
Technosn'le
 120 The Rhetoricof Science

' ' . ' 1 . 1 [ 1 r 1 . 1 t L1 lrs1i 'lrl 'gl a b o r a t o

: : : r ! \ () i t l l Ù \ ci'J l s t r t l l l ! e l l tas l,l

Enunciationand assertion(Énonciationet énoncés) third
- : : . r t i ( ) nr ç i l lb e b u i l t .I 3 1 ' a
irs"text 1
(cDonciationJ . .lc'irlttatefrencefirrth
r ' r . r ' , l t i r ( t ( t . n ' r n \ l \ r l L j r u r l l ( t , ' t t h c . r r t i , l <r < l ' r , r l , n c ,l lr < r < . . r r rr ,l lr . . . . , , r r , 1
I t ,. tt t,,llr( lin( r,ullrl\r.. ' ' " . ' \ i ( ) l t s s u c hl s " p a r c e t t eN o t
I
I ' l c s . l c t i v i t édse c r i t e sp l u sh
I lll Person 3rd person ,:r.l
I
. ..: \. rr'hichitselfoperateson th'
,.r.lt,'r tr, I, sc .lr,r, I, n p l u r i e u r , . r r r t c r r r/: s c l c r a l . r u t h o r : l , l l
|
r . , , r .. r 1 ' t , . 1 1 . 1 , ,\1. 1 . h . , l l( . r l l I \ lt.irhiint, l5
I
li,rrJ.f',rr.,,rL,,tLrsl.lt.r,
hisl,l.t l.esréstrlr.rtsLicSchreiltriSihreiber'sresuhsl,lfi I.rnt is ilutht)risedby the infra
J . . L r . , , L i ll L , n l , r t \ r r s l . l 6 o n p r r l r v e , l i t . r r l l r ' , , r i l e l . i 1L ,e1\ 9
1 n , , i l .1 . , ' L n t ()f the literilttlreP()ss
,;'nr.tli()ll
n ' r u . L r ri r * ' i l . s L , r r I . l ,rn .rdcirit r litcr.rllio
- ,r r e l t r ' t i e ' . r i l ' c . i . l , - ; ;
I
r'r('rcncedin its entirety bv the
r r , ' r r ., , t , 1t , " ' . \\( tr.( I l
I
r t , ' r r . . t v . ' r rr .t i r ' r ( r ( \ r l . r r r , l r . r r r r_ l i
I
I tr,'.r1
I
. ' . r r l g 1 , ' 1 1 . , i , 'rr. r . . l . ' l l r l l r . r l , ( . , | -. . . 1 i .:..tr.lct.The title or the iib:'trâc
. ( ) fi l l l i t s i n f t r r r n r r
I nrodalisations
I
",.l.',r1;rlioll
I
portulerI p,"ttrhte l, J ' . ' i t i l i t v i n l i t e r i r t u r eT. h e p r o l
* c r r i t / r h r . h s u p p , ' s e d l v. I i
l,lui
I , , n t J u i . r l i t h . r v r. r l r , , r J r . l . r i n t . l , l l
: r hc refcrent ( by refcrerltrvenre
I
exprinré se" rirerves / erprc:sccl rcsùfrJtions l, I I
:hcr literar,vPractices'thereis ei
l c : n r i n r c s t i r c r v c sI t h c s r n r c r e \ e j \ . r t i o n \l . l 5
: l c tt ' t l t r r t; r l l- , r s i r r f i c t i o r li n t t
I
rr oDt p.r\ e!É rernje' jer .ô))rlilr(r)\ , tlte .()rdJtJol)! r'ere n({ .r5\rDrhlc(i L Iq
I
:rns prcriugeri \ rthout preiudsirrg l. .t.l
torresponci acrt.tiltenl.ltt / rlctinitclv correryrnrl: 5, I : . J c r ' J. r l e l c r c l l t b' u t i t c t l t t s i s t'
probablenrent / probrtrlv l, l-l
::rc .rrticleacts,the infratext up
assertions (cnoncis) ..).rrl. It is asif the paper'ssolidi
-.,rr('\p()llclell.es establishedb)'
J(lrve pasrire

.le nontbreux re'ultrts / nnnr tindings | ,l les rÉsullrts rnpPortés |nr / results reported br-1, 18 rirnc.lththe scientifictext otle fil
une rteutohuttteur qui serrit I i nÉuroiecreti()n\tich i! Lln cxtr.lit prép.lré /.lI c\tr.lct prcp.rrcd t, i5
.lpp.lrcntlr l, I
u D r \ u b s t n t t . er l i r i t e | o n d / . ! s t l ) s l . r D ( ei r c c r i i l l , ;
un c\lr.itt (:t rcpris / in (\Îri.t
u D r ' \ t r . r i rc s t . l l l p l i q l r . - . / . r n
i: rcror'erc.l l. 16
efr.r.t is.rpplicdl. J:
The problem of the infor
h ntethorle r ion(lurt / the Jrr.lho(l led l, l0 une erperiente e\t re.lli\c. /.ur c{}lennten( is qrriccl rrur
les réserles clLrivents'rfrfrliquer / re:ervrtions n1u5t.lfrfil\ l, -10
" Upstreanl"or "dtlrvttstre
t t l t o t h e rt e x t : t' h ' l t ( i t e
' r r r ' r ' ù l)l b
l, l1 rouri, suuntisc I nrousc subjcrtcd l, -l.l
h frrction.lEit / rhe ir.l.tioll i.ts l, l(l les llÉtnil\ ieront ripporté! / thc tlcr.rilsuill l.c reporreell, l
l . r f i l t r r t i o n \ r f . i i l , 1 f l l t f J t i ( ) rrrr l i r s p l . r c el , r l i ( \ r l t r r r r r c È . \ . 1 \ ( r l r c \ \ i ûr \ o t c J 5 u r c d1 , 5
l . rr ' , r ' r , l r e : r i r r < : , . u . . l t t c l l t i ( ) l(l ) n i l u l l i q u e 'i l '
lr zone iorreslorttl / the zons corres|r'nJs l, I I dsù\ T,rrresr()nt ratrr)il\(as r I\!() z()ncsirc i!.Jir) ,i)unrl l. 19
''.,(rr1
) o r t r ; t t t s t r t iln l t l t ' n t i t t i t
l rttlviti Pcr:istc / thc rctivilr (()nîinucr .l, l i ll tr.r.ti,,n r !;lÙ rclr{r!r|c. / rlrt fiactr,rn s.rr .rg.rinfirunrl
elle corrcsponJ I rt rorr.sl)onds l, l.i :, :9
is b,vdefinition replace
:r(r\\'r'\'er,
ellc corrcsprrrd./ it.orrc5P()rlds l, 15 l'.r.rivrr. cst Lrc.rli:ee/ .rrrivi[ is l,trte.] l..il
trrction nc51 PlLrs.rctile / ti.rction j: ûo l()nger i.tile l, lS .rucun ctict n'i éré tft)ûre i no cffcet rr.rs tirLrnrll, -tu . r r t i c l ei s t r u e ' a n o t h e râ r t i c l er
I.r réponr ert iJentitlue / the rc:|onsc rs id.nti.Jl I, l.)
l'actir-itéilépentl i tlre.r.tivilv depentis J, Jt)
it ol il tn
' r r i r l c : t t t a yc h i l l l e n g e
elle est statrlei it l5 stit)le l, I I
i.ut it is llot like a telephonedi:
l hrrlnrlr.sene detruit pas I hrdnrlr:ir doc\ nd d.!rr()\ l, l.l
I i n j e c t i o nd o n n c / t h e i n j e c t i o nr e \ u l t s i n l , l 5 .rnr()tlntof in fbn-natiorltr'rnsln
lJ ha.tion Il nc Iroduit pras/ tractirrn li docr nrr protluce
l. l7 \\ ()rds- "diencéPhale"/ tlietrc
Jesrlo'es l oDl l.rs dr)DDé/ thc drrrcs riitl r)()t l)rr)Jù(c I, j I
.?a('l(iIt'- shoulc-lnot be ct'rtts
h tractiotr li n'r gr' / fi.rction tl ûrc: rrot h.tle l, .lo
les activités corre:pondent / the .l.tirities cnrrespond l, ll . i.c'l.vthat lvhich, ftrr the snrall
la substanct'corresponrl / thc :ulrst.rncecor rc:pontls 5, I jargt
;.rlledinto question.This
l . r r to f f e r sl l ( ) l l c \ vi t t f t t r t t t : t t i t t

T è c h n o s t y lveo l . 16 , n , ' 1 H i v e r 2 0 0 0 l e i h n o s t v l eV o l . 1 6 ,N o . I 2 0 0 0\ \ ' i n

 The Rhetoricof Science
Rruno Latotlr anclPaoloFabbri

They are, in a sertse,the syrnbolic

in the laborator,vusing laboratory instrur-nents.
writings of theseinstlurnents,and thcy nrakeup the it{rurafi Lrponwhich the denr-
o n s t r . r t i ( ) n r v ibl le b u i l t . t 3 y a t h i r c i t y p e oaf n a p h o r , p a r a g r a p hl ,s2 a n d 6 - r v h i c h r v e
n r l ( 1t h e i ç ( o n l i t t t l r e
line nunther.) rvill designatehencefrrrthâs"text A'- referto paragraphs3, 4, and -5( "text ll" ). Thus,
:lson expressions suchas"par cetteNote nous rnotltrons"/ irr this Notcr/e slrcw(pageI , line
:lr\,lut(ur\ / scrcr.rl.rurhor: 5) and "les actit'itiesdcscribulabovt (2,.10).shorvthat
activitésdecritesplus haut",/1/re
I

text A, rvhich itselfoperateson the context,is establishedin referenceto text l], which
fc\ù,,s,,,,,
;:l:i;|)lii:li:,:lI'î:'!;" in turn is authorisedby the infratext.The rvritingsof the irrstruntetrts
n)ike ir trans-
: c r i t , / l i t e r . r l i r ,r,r t e h r s
L l e s . r i h c t l ,l
forrnationof the literaturepossible.Lastly,a fourth type of anaphor:the text itself is
refèreucedin its entirety by the title and usually (although not in this case)bv an
abstract.The title or the abstractdo not simplv indicateor evokethe text, but are a
concentrrrtionof all its information, il rrrreoccurrer-rce
in the hun-ranities
and an irn-
possibiliti'in literature.The proliferationof references modilles the classicproblem
ofthe refererrt (l:y rt'ltrerrt
vtenrearrsinrplythat ofrvhich a givendiscoursespeaks).In
other literarvpractices,thereis eitl-rertr referentlvhich is not textualor elsethereis no
referentat all -as in fiction intendedits such. ln the article presentedhere,tl.rereis
indeeda referent,but it consistsof irn accumulationof texts:the contextupon which
the article acts,the infratext upon rvhich it is based,part Ll, upon which part A is
based.It is asif the paper'ssoliditv- sorre nr ight sâyits objectivity- sternsfrorn the
correspondencesestablishedby interleavingeach of thesedifferent layersof texts.
L\ Jlrpportes p.rr / rcsults
.rl)(,rted bl t, l6
pfef.tre ,, .ilt crrr.t.t
prcl).treri l, li Beneaththe scientifictext ()nefinds not nature,but the literatureo{ instrulrents.
eil relln\ / rn crtrrct
is rr,irxcretl l, lô
e \ l . r t J , l r , r . r (, i l ( \ l r . r r r
(l)\( (.1 rc.tli,eL
r , . r 1 , p l i c lt .l : _
. t i r . \ l \ L r i I l ( i l tt . . . i r i t r J , , . t 1
The problem of the information transmitted
"Upstreanr"or "dorvustreanr"frour the text lve find rlot nature (the ultinrate
referent)but other textsthat cite this one or that it cites.Other fornrsof writing either
fcrcusattention on ir unique, irrcplaceableobject (tl-risis the caservith ernovel or zr
poern) or transnrit infbrnration (as rvith a tertbook, a directory,etc.).This article,
Lrcriirir / actiritr ir
ioc.trerll, -ll is by definition replaceable,
becauseone must be ableto build upon it. Iithis
l n ete tr()Ll!c / no horvever,
cflcct tr.rs tirund l, Ju
article is true, another article n)av refer to it in a half-sentence;
if it is false,other
articlesmay challengeit or it mav be totalli,ignored.rThe articleis not like a novel,
but it is not like a telephonedirectory either.ln fact,leavingasidepar3g1x1'vh
3, the
ilntount of intormation transrritted by the article is quite srnall.The set of technical
rrordc- "diencéphale"/ ditnccplrnlous, "TRF'I "acétatede pvridirrr.rrn" / pyridinrtnt
acetat(- should not be construedas inforuration, fbr theseworclsdesignatep,re-
ciselvthat which, firr the snrallgroup of peersfor lvhorn the text is intended,is not
calledinto cluestion.This.jargonmav ntakethe text obscureto uninforn.redreaclers
b u t o f l e l sl l { ) l r ( ' \ vi t t f o r t l l l i t t l t l o s t i e r t t i r t s .

Tèchnostt,ie
vol. 16,n, I Hiver 200t)
t c h n o s t y l e \ b l . 1 6 ,N o . I 2 0 0 0\ \ ' i n t e r '
 122 The lLhetoricof Science

is the nen'infcrrnrationtransrnittedby this tc.xtx'hich lvouldjustif

\\that,tl-rer-r, ':'.: \t.lSr'\oi the rule
f'r'rritlcatiou,
its five pages?
The text doesr-rottransnritinformation; insteadit acts.For five pagcsit This irgre
.rll .rreirt i.tgreelllellt.
seeksto convince.Convinceof rvhat?That itn important shift, an intportant opera- - r.tt.l it. \\'here before thet'ervere'
tion hirs been achievedin the literirture.Convince rvhont?The group of peers,bv : : r ci n t P o t . l t t c eo f t h i s s h i f t ,i t r l r u
cieflnitionthe nrost difllcirlt group to corrvince,for it is uradeup of petiprlervho are . , , \ ù t r ) l ( ) 0 a r t i c l e ss, e v e r ânl l i l l i
challengedby this achievenient, this "victory." ::-.i.1'ltrl .rrticle,rvhichdenrtltrst
Horv rvill the text seekto conviuce?lly means of other texts produced in the :r r'hich its chernicalformula is
laboratoryand "produced"hereasevidence.Through analvsisof tl.ris"r'ictory"- the r nces,I 969,vol 269,Decenlber9,
tern-tis usedhere as in politics,sports,or giules-tve are able to penetratethe con- :r.lte5it itlto three r'vords("de ntlr
tent of the artic]e.The operrrtiorrperfbrnreclbv the article is sur-r-rnrariseci
in the title .r.11ce( "\'oir la récenterevuede I
i r n c le x p l r i n e di r . rç r a r a g r l p h1 . l n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c et ,h e s p e a k e r( i . e .t h e a u t h o r o r i , p . 1 , 1 . 5 )T. h i s a c t i o nn r a k e st t
ar.rtlrtrrs) is replacecl b1'aninrpersonal("c-lerrornbreuxrésultats"/ nrtnrt'rortsfin,lings) iLcldis openedwhich can be calle
rlhiclr'irnt conduit" / lnve lcdrothe nrodalizationof a proposition.'fhe n.rodirlizatior.r .h.'ntical ftrrtnulirof this substan
is nrarkecltn'ice:first b1'the verb "postuler" / postrtlott'iltdsecondb1'the useof the .lu.r'clin the interveningeight ve
ctrtditiorral("c1uiseraitI wlrichis toku to be,n,lrichappurertlyis:literally,whiclrworld t , , o k t h i s f i n a l p a p e ra s p o i r l t o f
'l'hc can be defined
lrt'1. propositionctruld be translatedinto ordinarv ianguage:there e-ristsin the tlclrlof discussit>tl
hl pothalanrusa substancethat controls secretionb,vthe pituitirry gland of the hor- ,rr s() PilLr€t'S that explicitlv reftr
mone TSH, ivhich in turn regulatessecretionof horntonesb1,the thyroid.eThc ac- l . r t a sot l l e .
tion the text perforr-r-ts
is seenin a trvin transftrrmatiorrin the seconclsentence.
Instead
of an impersonalconstruction("de nonrbrr'uxrésultats")tl'resP911|ig1 "n()us
irppears:
Detour via Polemics
t.t.tontrorrs"
I we shov;irtsteircl ("pe51111.-1
of nrodaliz-atiorr I'existeuced'une substance The l-ositionthat the autho
qui serait"I postultrtetlrc eristence
o.l''r:tiltsttttrcc
wlriclris ttrkt'nto l;e)there is an lffir- clit avoir nlis en évidcnc
rrnt clcriit
mation:"1'existence
d'une substancequi correstr-rond attendues/
aux caractéristiques alrtotll' clainrcd ttt hot'e idt'tttifte
the existenceof o substutrcctlnt lns tlrc expcctcdclutrnctcristics.
Through this tivin thus be necessar,vto dislodgetlie
transftrrmation,a possibilityunder discussiontakeson an indisputableexistence.
ft r)feningof the fieldof study'tlattl
runderstand
this shift, it is necessaryto grasprvhat is at stake.Over the previous20 ' clainrto hnt'c shown),n'hich sta

vearsa paradigm had lreenconstructccl,

on the basisof ph1'sioiogici.rl
data,rvhereby . / r t r r irt' t l i l r ef ' . T h e : . t t t t eo p e r r titt
tirr fronr regulatingitself(fèedback)could be controlleclbv the
the eudocrinesyster.rl, rlelicatelv. In an An.rericanarticl
ner\1oussystemvia the hypothalanrus.iu the 60s this paradignrwas not cl.rallenged. thirt findings of tl-retrvo l:rboratc
I l u t s i r t c et h e i m p l i c i t ( ) n t o l o g yo f e n d o c r i n o l o g yi s r e s o l u t e l ys u b s t a n t i a l i s ta, ruationalcuston.rs, individual c'du
had to be developed,postulating(as in Aristotle) the existenceof ho-
subparadign.r lirtewriting operationslargelvb
lnogeneous,specific,discrr-tesubstances.
LIntiltlris irrticler.vas
published,neuroendo- canncttbe reducedto a nlâtterof
crinologyhad offerecla chaosof findings,clirinrs,evidence,and counterevidence,but that scientificarticles"hrtvetro t
In contrast,this article- r)t'lll()reprecisel,v,
r-roclearlyidentifiedsubstance. the group plavonlv irn individual style'Tir
ofarticlessurroundingit constructsa clearlydeflneclobject;that is at leastrvhatit guishatt-rong the writing strateg
sa1'sit does and rvhat it is recognisecl
by other texts that cite it. Everi'text seeksto inrposedby the scientificcolrnr
corrvince,but the scientifictext achiei,csthis ellèct b1'developinglayersof textscon- viclual
"vriter'
sistentlvith one anotherrvhichserveasnrutual refèrents.
Here,firr exarnple,bioirssays,

Iechnosn'ler,ol. 16,r.roI Hiver 1000 T e c h n o s $ ' l\eb l . l 6 ' N o . I 2 0 0 0\ \ ' i n t '

 fhe Rhetoricof Science
liruno Lafour anclPaoloFabbri

nritted by this te.rrrvhich

rvouldjustif,
ration; insteadit acts. the stagesof purification,tl.rerulesof the procedurefbllorved,the statisticalanall'sis
For fir,epagesit
-all are in agreerttertt.
This agreen'rent is a break front the disagreentc-nts
that pre-
intportant shift, an intportant
opcra_
vince.ryhorri The group cededit. Where before there rvereclirirns,ntxv there existsarnob.ject.In orcierto grasp
of peers,by
:, for it is nlade up of people thc'it't.tportance
of this shift, it rnr-rst
be understtrodthat it took nrorethan eight years,
who are
closeto 100 articles,severalnrillion rlollars,and a half-dozenpeopleto lnove fronr

neans of other te_rtsproducecl this 1962article,which dentonstrates the existenceof the substance,
to a 1969article
in the in which its chernicalforrrrulais dernon.strated(Conrytesrorrlr-c,Acadéuriedes sci-
rough analysisof this,,victury,,_
the ences,I 969,vol 269,December9, I 969).The 1962text revieu'sthe paradigrn,concen-
i - rveare able to penetrate
the con_ tratesit irttcrthree rvords("de uotnbreuxrésultats"/tttnnerousJ'inlùtg.s)
the article is surnntarised and one ref-
in the title
cnce, the speaker(i.e. ererrce("roir la récenterevuede Bogtianovel1]"/scc the rccant7r,1'ig11t lty Bogdanoye
the authur or
oreux résultats" / trItttt, [1], p.l,l. 5). This action tnakesthe precedingfield of argr.rnrentation
obsolete.A nerv
rttrts.firtd i ttgs)
n of a proposition.The field is openeclwhich can be called"isolationaud characterisationof TllF."When the
rnodalization
'stttlafc chemicalftlrrnulaof this substancewas establishedin 1969,all of the literaturepro-
;tnd second by the use
'lt of the duced in the interveningeight ,vearsin turn becarreobsolete.All subsequentstudies
npporcntly is;literally,
whiclrynttld
clinalv language:there took this final paper as point of departureand opened neu' fieltls basedtur it. The
exrstsrn the
n bi, the piruitar),gland terms- that is,by a hundred
fleldof discussioncan be defined in strictll.ir.rtertextual
trf the hor._
hornronesby the thyroid., or so papersthat explicitly refèr to oue another and rvhich are all subsumedi1 the
l-he ac_
tion in the seconclsentence. latestone.
instead
;ultats")the speaker
appears:,.ltrlu.s Detour via polemics
ostulc-rI'existenced,un
e substance
hich is ttkert ro 1rr,ithere TI-rt'positior-r
that the author rvishes to takeis alreadi,occupied."Plusieursauteurs
is an affir_
td aux caractéristiques ont déjà dit avoir nris en ér'idenceet purifié la substanceTRF" / Scyerrllouthorshttve
attenclues /
clmractcristics. nlrendycloitrrt,dto htt'e ilcnti.ficl artd pttri.fiedtlte eil,stdnc(TRÀ p. l,l. l2). It ivill
Through this twin
:scln an ilrdisputable thus be necessarv to disloclgetheseauthorsfrom their positior-r,'"vhich comnands the
.k)
e.\istelrce.
ofreningof the fieldof stucil'.llattleisjoined via a str.listic
device( "ont dit rtvoirrnontré"
rs at stake.Over tlie prevrous
20 / chitrt to lnt'c slrcwn), rvltich stanclsof coursein contrilstwith "nous rr.rontrclns"
'is of physiological / rle
clata,rvhereby
slrorvin line 6. The sal'neoperationcould havebeenperformednrorebrutally or nrore
dback)could be contrrlied
by the
trs par-adignr delicatell:In an Atnericartarticle thereivor.rldhavebeerra grlite rerrrirrkkr the effect
rvasnot challenged.
that frndingsof the trvo laboratoriesdo not rlatch up. At this level,professionaland
i l i s l e . s o l u t e l ys u b s t a n t i a l i s t ,
a nationalcustonts,individualeducation,antl the art of u'l iting lla)/ inten,enetctntoclu-
tn Aristotle) the existence
ol ho- late rvriting operationslargelybevontlthe author'scontrol.Our studv of operations
rticlelvasp ublished,ncunrerrdo_
cannotbe reducedto a ntatterof indivic-lual style.It supportsneitherthosewho claint
.1ence, and counterevidence,
but thirt scientificarticles"have no style,"nor those rvho flnd that scientificarticlesclis-
c--ol ll()re precisely,
the group
plavonlv art individual style.nr adopt eitherone of tht sepositionsis to fail to distip-
ted object;thitt is at least
lvhat it guishar-rtortgthe rvritingstrirtegies
inrposedby the stateof klowledgeattained,rhetoric
that cite it. Every text
seeksto imposedby tlrescientificcrrnnrunity,and minrlr stylisticdevicesselectedbv the indi-
' developing
layersof textscon_
vidual lvriter.
ts. Here,fr>rt-xarnirle,
bioassays,

T è c h r r o s t v l ev o l . 1 6 , 1 o
I Hiver 2000
f e t h r r o r l rl e \ i r l . I t ' , N r , . I l { ) 0 { )\ \ i n l r l
124 The llhetoric of Science

Next in the article coure ten lines of conrbat- one coulclcall it agoni:tic or The right to assertand its
polemical- in rvhicl.rNanres-Articles("Libert (6 )'l " tieichlin (7 )" ), not persons,are The battle is fought over th(
calledinto question.The polenricsof scienceobey'ssprecialrules;in this prart,it con- ' . ' , n i s . r t t r i b u t a b l tet l t h e s u b s t a n
into assertions(énoncés)
sistsirr re-insertingrr-rodalizations that had clainrednot tcr . r h o r i n . 7 ' l i c l ' s a tyh e y h a v ei s o l
need thenr. The scientific assertion(l'énoncëscientifityrc),in fact, cornesin trvo fcrrms: : . r . ' . r l st h a t t h e l ' a r e n o t e n t i t l e d
tlre sirrple assertion(énortcésintple)and the modalizedassertior.r (érroncétnodslisé).
-, )n\ irlcethe reader:beftrreI nligh
It rnight be saidthat an assertion(tJlirnntion\ in the exactsciences when
is successful . iiF: norv I catlnotbut believein i
it can appearnaliecl,rvith no nrodalization,in the fbrm'A is 8." Failureis to remaiu :.,,l.rtedTRF; norv I cirn no ltlnge
stuck in modalizirtions("Someclaim that A is ll"),'0The harshestattackinraginableis :,Lrl.rofessionalarld intellectual
thereforeto derail a given assertionand force it back into the conditionsof its pro- . it-nt rrrrlltorif'to definitively cor
duction.Thus:"f un de nnus a exprirr-ré
sesréserves sur lesconclusior-rs
de Shibuzarva cristctrceof the substanceTl{F rvi
et coll" / Otrc o.l-ttsllrr.scxpr-csscr/
rescrvtttiotrs
obottt tht' conclusiotrs et :tI.
o.l'Shibuzowo , )pr'ratiolttlf convitrcitrgtriggers
pour irffirmerque
ip. I, l. l1);"N'ont pascitéréuniesfouteslesconditionsnécessaires rçorcls,the author rvill receivecrec
lrr fr-actitrnactivede Schreiberet coll n'agit que..."/ Therewerc not presetttall the i t . .C h u b i n & N { o i t r a '1 9 7 5 ) - r
cotrtlititttrsnccr'-s-r/ir), to con.firnrthat thc octit'c.fractiotr o.fSchrcibcret al. actsotily...,(p. .rnclresearchfunding, rvhich rvhe
l , l . l 9 ) . O t h e r N a n r e s - A r t i c l easr ea l s os u n r m o n e du p t o s u p p o r tt h e a t t a c k": R e i c h l i n to r.risethe stakesand take the su
(7) vient d'aillerrrscleconfirmer notre point de vue" / Reichlin(7), nroreover, hasre- Lrndertake a cortlpleteanalysisof
centll'cortfirntcdorrrpoint tt.l'viev,(p. I, L l5). lnsteadof simple assertions(énotrcés right to assert(intellectualautho
-"T ltF exists'l'A is [J"- varioustypesof rnodalisers
sinrples) areadcled,rvhetherfor it irrsp
r ) l c i l n 5( ) f t h e r e c o g l t i t i . r n
- "A " - -
an author X lns saidtlnt is ts for an argument X'sconclusions lt'odittgto cf. llourclieu1976)'Theseques
tlrc st(ltenrcnttlnt "A is B" - tlnt olllw X to
or frrr a procedure- ltr vitro exPerinrcttts lvhich s
in our text by n.rodalities
concltulethat"A is 8." It is often clainredthat scientiflcideologyis a t1'peoftheatrical the rva,vphilosophers claim it is' t
perfrrrmancethat hidesrvhatgoeson in the rvingsirnd offersthe audiencea theoreti- nrust
,t'rtain rcsert'otions appll' (p
In fact,closerobservationofactual sci-
cal processlvith neither plot nor characters. all o.fthe ne
l.asété réunies"/ not
entific activity showsthat this is not the ideologyof scientists,but rather that of phi- contrastwith the phrasesof line 7
The scientificoperirtionpor excellttnce
Iosophersrvho wish to impose it on scientists. i *'hich corresPondt() th(' exPect
is not to conceirlthe conditions of production but to put them in the placeof the \poltdent aux caractéristiques h,
be disastrousfor a hurried
perfornrancethat authorsrvishto put on. The resultsrr-ray ttJ It vpotlrt'ticrr L'lrtr'tctt istic
1'tc
author lvho is trying to freehimselfasquickly aspossiblefrom all theseconditions.It Jgreententor disagreementn'itl
is evenpossibleto define the frontiersofa scienceas the placervhereoppottentsare . r \ \ e r t( / i r t r l o r i t l , l t r l i r c \ -
constantlyforcing assertions(énoncés) back into the experinrentalconditionsunder lnterestingl,v,the first auth
rvhichthey rvere produced.Any "cold" science,in contrast,is preser-rted.rsa sequence t c e r rc r i t c r i r t h l t tr t t t l s tb c n r c t i r r
of affirnrations- at least until a nerv fiont is established,rernobilisingassertiolrs hormone had indeedbeen obse
(nrobilisertle nout'eaulesétroncés)
and revealingtheir true origin." flne the rulesof the ganre'rvithc
perintentaledificervould be inc<
sufficesto shor
lc ph1'sittlogie***
pressthe obligatiorrto proceed

l e . l r r t , r . t r l er o l . I n , t t " I H i v e r 'l l , l l l - )
\bl. l6' No. I 1000\\rint
Tèchtrosn'le
 The llhet,rric of Science 125
llruno Latour and Pao]oFabbri

llbat -- one could call it agonisticor

The right to assertand its prerequisites
t ( 6 ) ' l " l t e i c h l i n( 7 ) " ) , n n t p | r s o l t s a
, re (r/roitde lire) (that the activefrac-
The battle is firught over the right to assert
rbeysspecialrules;in this parr, rt con_
tion is irttributableto the substtrnccTltF)' What is at stirkein this debateis therefore
ons (inolccs) that had clainrednot
to
.ltlthority.TlrcT'saytheylraveisolate<lTl{Fbtrtircloseexalllinaticrlroftheir.eviderlce
uttifique),in fact,contesin t1,1,o forn1s: in total contrast'ait-t'ts to
revealsthat they are not entitleclto assertthis. The Note,
rodalizedassertion(ttnoncéntorlalisrt). of the substance
irt the existetlce
colvince tl-rereader:beftrrcI nlight Irot Iave believed
n the exactsciences is successful lvhen that shibuzarvahad
have believed
TRF; now I canuot but believein it. BeforeI Inight
t h e t i ' r n r ' X i s l ] . " F i r i l u r .ies r ( ) r . e n . l . l i n of ar'rthority is indissolu-
" ) . ' 0T h e h a r s h e sart t a c k isolatedTllF; norv I can no longerbelier'ethat' The tratrsfer
i r r i a g i n a b lies article,to rlcct,rttrlrrte suffi-
bl,vprofessionaland intellectual.\Vhoeveris aÛlc,in the
t back int<tthe conditionsof its pro_
cient,rutlorrtJ,to definitivelvcoilr'irtcc others thilt he has indeeddetllonstratedthe
r\/essur lesconclusionsde Shibuzarva the nervfield of studl''The
existercetrf the substanceTRF rvinsthe right to dorttitrate
ttrt tln, corrclusiotts
o.fshil,rrza
ll,rtet al. "souls" of otre'speers'In trther
operittictn0f convirtcingtriggersrecclgt'titiotl ill the
Citionsnécessaires - quantitativell'bycitatiotls
f-rouraffirnterque rvords,rl.reauthor rvill receivecredir.This cledit marked
e..." I There were ilot prcsant oll the be cor.rverted into a job
':tiorro.fSchrt'ilLcr (cf. Chubin & lr'ftritra,1975)- nrrlv,rvithin tl.reprrofessior.r'
et irl. actsonly...,(p. reinvestedin the laboratoryrvill make it possible
and researchfun<1ing, rvhich rvher.r
:d up kr support the rrttack:,,Reichlin it rvouldbe prematurettr
to raisethe st.kesarrdtake the substancefarther.Although
vue" / Reichlin(7), noreovo,, hosre_ sciences, it can be seetlthât the
Irnderttrkeir colnpleteanalysisof credit irl the exact
rsteadof sintpleassertiolls(Éironcls to cotlvittce,rvhichin turn, b,v
right to assert(intellectualauthority) entailsthe porver
rf nrodalisersareadde,l,rvhetherfor rletv (prrofessiorlal) right to irssel't
r.neans it irtspires,establishes
of the recogrlitit')l-r ir
{ur)rent- Xi cttrrcltrsiorrs leadittgto at severalp(rints
(cf. Bourdieu 1976).Thesequestionsof eutitlenrentare nranifèsted
- irt r.,itroe-rperinrents
that tllow X to all, if sciencerverervritten in
ir.rour text by modalitieswhich shrlulclrlot be presentat
rtific ideologl.is a ti,pe of theatrical "les réserves doivents'appliquer"/
the lvayphilosophersclaim it is.For example,note
rand <tfTersthe audienceir therlreti- " ions trécessel irestl'oltt
ntust.lppl)'( P.I , l. I 5 ) ancl t orttc's les col-rclit
certttirr rtserytttions
ct, closerobservationofactual sci_ x'crc asst'niltlt'tl(p' I' l' l9), rr'hich
pasété réurries" / rtrttall ttf thc nec(ssor)'conditiorts
r f s c i e n t i s t sb,u t r a t h e rt h a t o f p h i - rlttendues"
contrastrvith the phrasesofline 7,"qui corresptlnclent ilux caractéristiques
: scierrtificoperati()npar t,xct,!lt,nct, and line 'lJ on page 2 , "qui corre-
I which corrcspond tô tlrc exPectc(l charocteristics
Jt k) put ther.nin the place of the to thc ex'
sporrder.rt aux caractéristiques h,vpothétiques attendues"/ whichcttrrespond
Its ntay be disastrousfor a hurriecl
p,,t,,thl,pntt,,ticalcltnractcri.stics.Theentiretexthingestlr-rapointtlfentitler.nent:
rssiblefront all thesecoltditiolts.It
$,ith this point confèrs()r collstitutestl-reauthority trr
agreententor disirgreenler-rt
as the placeivher.eopponentsare
assert(liirrtoritt:dr: dirc)'
te experintentalconditions under thir-
Interestingl,v, the first aLrthorof the article had, in arlrearliertext, deflrred
)utrast,is presentedasa sequeltce that a hi'pophysiorropic
teencriteriathirt r.nustbc.nret in order to be ableto colrclude
ablished,rernobilisingassertlorls artifact.These thirteerlcriteria de-
h6rrnone haclindeedbc-en obseryecl, atld llot an
'ir trueorigin.tr
the preceding cotnbat and the erlsuitrgex-
fine the rulesof the game,rvithout which
A glance at this text tior.nthe Jourrtal
perir.nental edificervoulclbe incomprehensible.
(which ex-
tle physiologia-** sufficesto shotvthe omnipresenceof ethicalnrodalities
pressthe obligation 1r-r procecdin certain rvirys)'such as "il faut", faudrait" / orre
"il

T e c l l r o r t r ' 1 et r l . 1 6 , n , , I H i v e r
l(X)0 \rol.I6, No.I lt)00\\'intet'
Tèchnostvle
 t26 The lthetoric of Science liruno Latour and PaoloFabbri

nrrrsl,"or.rdoit s'irttendle"/ it nrustltc cxpt'ctcd. this is not a legaltext in

Nonetheless, crçrerimetrtalprocedurein its ent
Each requi:ite is
l'hich right is basedon a higher liirv,ir natural larv,or a prececlent. in the battle to convince.Kudos t
deriveddirectly fronr a long seriesof experimentallailures(ten yearsspent on CRF the philosophicaldifferencebetu
n'ithor.rtproducinga cleallvdeflneclsubstilnce
), consideredbv snnreonewho, to clttote to be fcrund,we must seekit eithr
-
rvishesneither to deceivenor to be deceived.If rveivereto seeka political
Nietzschc-, I r {) t ) tJ nd t h e s u p p l yeo r p s o r i
to this nranifest,we lvould tlnclit in the notion, dear to Steprhen
r't1uir';rlent Toult-niu, that havebeetrwon and the bet tl:
oi t he "coup d'état'lor evena settlingof accouutsrvith oneselfor n'ith others.ln its I 3 and exper
nrelltsare ullnecessatr)'
the conditionsof ar.rthorityof the new field. lf I n'ishto
pcrints,this text sunrnrarises ner,erfougl-rta war alld llever qar
then I tntrstpcrfortrithe operationslistedin 1 to 13,in order f.oLteablc to usscrt
Àrrorr', ParagraPh5 relatesthe tests
(pouvoiràire)(that A is B). ALrthorityis the nreirnsrvherebythe ir'ishto knou'is tr.lns- plodr,tcedeffects.These effectsal
lated into disciplinein one'sexperinrents.Ilivals in the field of study do not really \fectrogranls,curves'Photos) ot
rvishto kr.rou'.
\\''ithout great risk, they concludefror.nthe paradigrnthat TRF rnust rr'hatkinc-lt.lfinstrumentsand, ir
existar.rdthat they actuallyseeit. They live ofï the paradignr;they do not open up a rvcrerecorded.Other articlesdesc
and if one rr'ishesto go fiorn TI{F,
new field.Ilut if the desireto knol'is keener.rough c'flirrtwas requiredto developthe '
asubstancervhoseexistc'ncehasbeenderuonstrated(inthel962article),toTllF,a b.-dralvtr.A ctlrnbinatitltlof Inatt
s u b s t a n c et h a t i s c h e n r i c a l l vi d e n t i f i e c l( i n t h e 1 9 6 9 a r t i c l e ) ,t h e n o n e m u s t b e rrr,rrle for the firsl littre,
it pttssible,
a b s o f u t e l yc e r t a i nt h a t t h e s u b s t a n c eo n e h a s a t t h e o u t s e t i s T R F a n d n ( ) [ s o n t e - peak on rvhichthe result
.1.-laved
t h i n g e l s cT. h e p o l e n r i ca g a i n s to t h e r si s b r - rtth e c o n s e q u e n c oe f a p o l e n - r ircg . r i r r s t This is what exPlainsthe el
oneseli and it is nretrsured i n t h e s t r e n g t h o f o n e ' s d e s i r et o k n o l v . I n d e n f i n g of hypothalimi is tlerr'a
nr-rnrber
orleself the authorit;- t() assert (ne s'arûttriscrnpasà dire) that one has identitled th.rthrtdbcerrusedhitherto.The
TRIr betbre meeting the l-l criteria,the aLrthoritvof others is uncfune.The g.rnreis 'ig,nalsan innovativetnethod' S
rvorth the candle,for the resultis tl.recreationof a nervfield of stud-vover rvhichone nriceis irlsoa tlew elemetrt'The I
has incontestableauthoritv. g assertions(a.1fi
t he prececlir.r r nm
i\ frrecedeclbv an "instrun-rerlta
The power to prove .irv atralvsis-such asa descript
So firr rvehave studit-dfirst sociologicalurarkers,then refèrences,rurd lastlt' This tlccottlltdt
clori()ttsstrtl€lgle.
t h e s t r a t e g ) ' o fs h i f i s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r et h a t t h e a r t i c l ea c h i e v e sN. o w u ' e u ' i l l e x a t r - ..lsr-,the irrBulllcl)tis strengthe
i n e u , h a t n r a k e st h i s s t r a t e g yp o s s i b l e .P a r a g r a p h s3 , . i , a n d 5 ( p a r t B ) s e e r . rsro ,,nekno*,sthat thesenelvIlethod
" t e c h n i c a l "t h a t t h e , va p p e a ri r r e d u c i b l et o a n y ' s o c i o l o g i c aaln a l y s i sL. e a v i n ga s i d e \ortetheless,this illstrulnent sto
for the nronlent paragraph-1,n'hich is sinrply a list of articlesthat have been pub- rsconsideredcomPleted.
lishedor areto appear)let us considerparagraph5. Ifrve superposethis paragraphon Prtge-i of the ilrtiele Provic
tL'rgo inside the instrunrent'At
the list of l 3 criteria,it L-reconres .li Ltrtt
clear that erch sentencccttnu:s one of the criteri.r
A of the text (paragraphs1,2,and 6), therebyr.nakingit possible.
andgocstoy,ordparT. thesetablesdo ntlt provide rarv
This part of the text is thereforeno lrore "technical"than the first part. The author rctual experiments.lnstead,lhe
doesrtot give us his experirnentalprntocolsand logbooks-far fr-onrit. Instead,he . r r c r e r t d vt o b e u s c d i l t a l l y t i l l
a r g u e sb, u t h e d o e ss o b r . n r e a n so f o t h e r t e x t s .I t t h u s a p p e a ri m p o s s i b l et o d i s t i n - ,,a.u,-r'rulltiotlof tlurnbers,so ch
guish supposedly"hlrd" data fronr "sofi" hvpothesesbecausc,fronr the first, the lengthyexperirrlentalprotocol b

l e c l : r r , r . l r ' l\e( ) 1 .l h . r ) " I H i \ e r 1 0 0 0 i e c h n o s o ' l \eb l . 1 6 ,N o . I 2 0 0 0\ \ ' i n t €

 The Rhetoricof Science
Iiruno Latour and PaoloFabbri t27

. Nonetheless, this is rrot a legalte.xtin

experirnetrtalprocedurein its er-rtirety
hasbeena stratitgenrainredat scorinBa proilrt
I larr',or a prececlenf. Each requisitei.s
. u d o st o l v h o e v e rc a n n r a i l i t a i n i, n a r t a r t i c l eo f t h i s k i n d ,
i n t h e b a t t l et o c o n v i n c e K
eltal failur.es(ten year.s
spent on CllF
the philosophicaldifferencebetrveenh,vpcrthesis r.tncl
confirmation. lf a diffèrenceis
, consideredby sonteonervho, (luote
to to be found, we must seekit either in rnilitary irnages- the differencebetrveenthe
-ieceived. Il ne lvereto seeka political
iront anclthe supply'corps- or in gambling- the diff erencebetrveena pile of chips
the lloti()u,dear to Stephen.iirirlnrin,
that havebeenwon and the bet that risksthem all. To concludeflonr this that instru-
fs r,vithoneselfor r,vithothers.
ln its l3 and expelinrentsare secondaryis the admissior-r
ntentsare unnecessary that one has
ruthoritv of the new field.
If I wislrto
neverfought a wzrratrd neverganrbled.
irr I tcr 13,itr orcler to [tt qble
to o55syy Paragraph5 relatesthe teststo which hl'pothalanrusextractsrvereput and which
rtsrvherebythe rvishto knor.r,is
trans_ producedeffects.Theseeffèctsare ahrost alwaysin the fort.nof rvriting (diagrams,
ls in the field of study
do not really
curves,photos) on lvriting surfaces.Paragraphs,3
spectrogrirnrs, and 4 describeon
e front rhe that TRF nrust
trrar.adigrn on rvhatkind of"screen" the eftects
rvhatkind of instrunrentsancl,in the bioassays,
he paradigrrr;they do not
open up a n'ererecorded.Other articlesdescribeexactlyholv the bioassays
lveredone. Enormous
;h and if one r.vishes to go lrorn TRF,
effort wasrequiredto devekrpthe screenupun."vhichan irlage like that txr page4 could
a t e d ( i n r h e i 9 6 2a r t i c l e ) ,
r o f R F ,a be drarvn.A combinirtionof nranualdexterit)',
experinrental
creativitl',and intelligence
e 1 9 6 9 a r t i c l e ) ,t h e n o n e
musr be madeit possible,
for the firsttinle,to capturea stablefornr on the instrument:this is the
t t t h e o u t s e ti s T R F a n c l
t l o ts o n t c _
delayedpeakon rvhich the resultof the TRF activity test is superir:rposed.
c o l l s e q u e n cocf i t p o l e r r r i c . r g l i r t s t
This is what explainsthe effectofparagraph 3 on a srnallgroup ofreaders.The
o n e ' sd e s i r et t l k n o i v . I n
denvirig number of hypothalirri is nervand is clearlydistinguishedfrotn the snrallqr-r.tntities
pas à dirt,l that one has
iclentified that had beenusedhitherto.The mention of pyridine and a "SephadexG 25" colur.nn
,' of others is undone. The
gante is in paragraph4 the use of rats rather than
an innovativemethod. Sirnilarl,v,
signarls
r nervfleld of studt.over
rvhich<tne The nrost inrportant eleutentfbr evaluatingthe credit of
nriceis irlsoa ner\,elenrent.
the precedingassertions(o.ffirmations)
is four-rdhere.In fact,everyscier-rti{'ic.lccount
is precededby an "instrumental"account- "instrulneutal"in the senseusedin liter-
of t]resl'orclthat rvill corneinto play in the hero's
ar).ânalvsis-such asa descriptitrrr
trkers,th..n refèrences,
and lastly gloriousstruggle.This accountdefinesthe conditionsfirr earningcredit.Lr the present
icle achieves.Now lve lvill
exam_ case,the argulnent is strengthenedbv this singletechnicalparagraph.lr.rreadingit,
hs -3,.1,anci 5 (parr Ii)
seerns6 (olrtrnnti()ns).
onekrrorvstlrirtthesenen,methodsrvill ultimatelysupportthe assertions
: i o l o g i c a la n a l y . s i sL .e a v i n g
asicle storv is u()t ()ur coucernhere,becausein paragraph5 it
this instrur-r-rent
Nonetheless,
;t of articlesthat havc
been pub- is consideredcompleted.
f rvesuperposethis paragraph
on 3 of the article proviclesdetailsof the teststhat the purified fractionsun-
Pag,e
ncecontt,sli<trnone of the
criteria dergo inside the instrument.At the end of each test there is a number. Obviously,
nd 6), therebymakine it possible.
thesetablesdo not provide ralv resultsand do not retracethe ins and outs of the
l" than the flrst part. The
author actuale\perilnents.Instead,they contain numbers that havebeert"cleanedup" ilnd
books.- frrr fr.ontit. lrrstc-ad,
he a r e r e a d l ' t o b e u s e da t a n l , t i r n e i r r t h e a r g u r l e l ) t a t i o nL. e t u - sc o n s i d e ra n e r vt h i s
L u sa p p e â ri r n p o s s i b l e
to distin- of the scientifictext.Pâge3 sur.nmrrrises
acculrulationof nurnbers,so characteristic a
ses because,front tlre
first, the lengthyexperinrentalprotocol by mobilising u few nunrbers.Paragraph5 rnobilises

T è c h t r o s t y l ev o l . 1 6 , n o
I Hiver 1000
Techno:tt le Vol. I o, Nr,. I l0{){) \\'itttcr
 128 The Rhetoricof Science IJrunoLatour and PaoloFabbri

the nun.rbersof page 3, but concludesrvith a rnoclalizationrather than a nurnber. the true prize at stake,rvhichis ac
ParagraphI in turn usesthe ntodalizationsof paragraph5, but its outcolne,far from 10, for exanrple.\\'e have two at
'right"
being a nrodalization,is a victor,vin the literature. otre, and rvhich is the "u
This accurnulationof texts nray be sunrrnnrisecl The instrunrental
graphicall,v. iritcriott 6: itr order to identifl
accountscoverthe Note;the list of the I J criteriadeflnesthe authorit,v.In the nriddle, tirlloivinga hypophysectonly.Nc
the textuallayersof our articleare accunrulated. thereare the otl'rerpapers
Upstrear-r-r l.lacein spaceirnd time' but the te
that are transfrrrrledby the text'soperatior-r;
dorvnstreamthere are thosethat trans-
form it. This characteristicof accurnuhtion explainsrvhy a laboratory is a type of fraction
production unit quite differentfiom a fackrr,v.
A pl.rarnraceutical
plant producessub-
fractionb
stilncesthat producelnoney;a laboratoryproducessubstances,
u'hich producenum-
bers,rvhich give rise to modalizations,rvhich convince.In the first case,substances
are sold; in the secondcase,assertions(érrortcés)
earn credit.rrllut the interplaybe- The first and third column
tween thesetrvo universalequivalents-money as capitaland informatior.r- is in ,rction,or in this casethe irlstrut-
fact nrore cornplex. is clevoidof tneaniug.It becotlte
r i q l r t ,r v l r i c hi s t h e t e : t o l - c o t t v i t
The authority of facts
\\'e havestatedthat paragraph5 establishes
moclalizations-that is, it argues. tiaction A
The sentence"deux zonesd'activitésont constanlnent retrou\,ées"
/ frvozortt'sof ac- ht'Pophl'sectonlY
Il'action B
tit,it),arcfountl agoinand ogtilrris not a simpleobservation(constotution),
but a strong
modalization rvhich enablesthe authors to statethat they are dealing rvith a sub-
stanceand not arnartifarct.This consister-rc1,,
repeatedon p.2, 1.29,is preciseli'lvhat I t r v o u l db e t e d i o u st o g o t

lvaslacking in other demonstrations.The fact that consistenteffectsare otrtained"à \entencehas the sameorganisitt
i n o r d e r t o l t t e e tc r i t e r i o n I 0 ; a t
Lrartirde I'hvpothalamus"l .frontthe lq'pothalanrus, rvhile no ef'fectis obtairredon
"l'extrait aceltiquedu cortex cércrbral"I tcttic (xtruct front tlrc cercltrnl cortt'x is rrot l ( ) n g - a c t i n gT S H . A t e a c h i n s t a
reported frrr the mere pleasureof offering up a curious fact, Lrutto prove that the . l r g l l n r e n tc o l l a p s e sa, h e s i t a t i o
experir-nentr-neetscriterion 1.\\'ith this sentence,
a r-ren'objection
is undone and the g r ; r p hi s n o t " t e c h n i c i r l " i;t i s r a t
((/roir(/e
right to asseft r/ire)is enforced.The testoftable 2, on page3 ofthe article,is pronged leferertceto the tablesc
recountedin line 25 of this paragraph.The experinrentupon rvhich it is basedn'as In other rvords,it has a Particula
devisedfionr the beginningin order to nreetcriterion3, rvhichrequiresthat the stinru- Tl-refirst setltenceof Par

lation follorva lir.rearfunction of the logarithnrof the closeinjected.Once again,tl.re eonflrr-nsthe perspectivethat rvt
agreernentbetweenthe conditions inrposedby the criterion and those obtained by r incing effectsproduced bY eac
the test scoresa point for the assertion(a.ffinrntion)that TltF is present.\\'e have f . l u sh a u t ( . . . ) c o r r e s p o n d e t rat
usedthe term "épreuves"/ rcststo designaten'hat might be called"expériences" / tx- neurohurneur TRF" I The actit'
perintents.But the experiment- rvhich took placein the laboratory,lvith animals, ;al charocteristicsexpectcdof tht

test tubes,and instrunrents- is r.rotrecountedhere; that l'ould take too long and r ictory is achieved.The name Tl
rvouldbe pointless.lnsteadof experiments,paragraph5 setsfirrth"tests,"in the liter- leaclersand rivals.Eight ,vearslat
irry senseofthe terrrr.In the presentcase,thesetestsareconrplicatedb,vthe absenceof

T è c h n o s t v lveo l . 16 , n o I H i v e r1 0 0 0 \t)1. 16.No. I 2000Winte

lc'chnostYle
 The Rhekrricof Science lJruno Latour anclPaoloFabbri t29

nrotlalizationrather tharr a
nuntber. the true prizeat stake,which is actuallyto be found in the list of 13 criteria.Tâkeline
)afagraph -5,but its outconte,
far front 10, for exanrple.We have trvo active fractionatiotts.Holv carttn'e tell whicl-ris the
I re.
"right" 61e, and rvhich is the "rvrong" 9ne? B,vputtillS theu to a test, defined by
tarisedgraphically,.
The ilstrumental criterion 6: in order to identify a hypophysiotropichormolle, activity must cease
a definesthe authoritv.In the
r.niddle, follor,vinga hypoph,vsecton.ry.Not a word is said of the âctualexperimentas it took
. Upstreantthereare the otlier
papers placein spaceand tirne,but the textualtestis clearar.rdcalt be sumlnarisedasf<rllorvs:
rvlrstreamthereare those
that trans_
plains rvhy a laboratory is
a type of activitY
fractionA | |
pharnraceutical plant proclucessub- hypophysectomy
cessubstances, lvhich proclucenunr- fractionB I I noacti\ity
)nvlnce.In the first case,substances
t earn credit.rrllut the interplay
be_ The first and third cçlurnns define the actors;the rniddle column definesthe
as capitaland inforntation _
ls in But it is clearthat the test,ifhalted at this point,
action,or in this casethe itrstrutrtetrt.
is devoidof nleaniug.It becornesmeaningfulonl,vrvhena secondtestis addedto the
r i g h t ,r v h i e hi s t h e l e s tr t f c , r t t v i n e i t l g :

; nrodaiizations- that is, ri

argues, activit,y c a n i n n o c a s eb e T R F
f r a c t i on
unent retrouvées,'lhyo zortes
ofoc_ 1s'r'ry
hvpophy5sç lequisiteno. 6
:rvatiorr( cortsttttrtti
ort),but a fraction D no activitt' can definitelv be TRF
stroltg
that they are dealing ivith a
sub_
tted on p. 2,l. 29,is preciseli, but each
what It rvould be tedious to go over the er.rtireparagraPhin this fashior.r,
t consistentelfèctsare obtained..i) organis.rtion.Fractiott B is judged to be diftèrent fronr TSH,
sentencehas the sarr.re
ls, rvhile no effèct is obtained criterion l0; and then different fronl vasopressitl'oxytocin, alld
on in order to meet
'ittl fntrrrlltr'ctrtbr,t!c.o,-/tx
is nUl long-acting TSH. At each instelnce,in the l.nind of the infirn.nedreâder,another
turiousfrrct,but to pror.ethat
the arglrntentcollapses,a l.resitationis reinforced,an objection is ur.rdone.This para-
Lnervobjection is undone and
'table the g r a p h i s n o t " t e c h n i c a l " ;i t i s r a t h e ra d i s c u s s i o trrv h o s ep a r t i c u l a rf c r r n ti s a t h r e e -
2, on page3 ofthe article,is pronged referenceto the tableson page3, the list of I 3 criteria,and part A of the text.
nreltt upon lvhich it is based Ir.rother words,it hasa particularrhetoricalshape.
was
r t . 1 r, rh i c h r c q u i r e st h r r t h e
stirrru_ The first serltenceof pirragraph 6, rvhicl.rrelrains to be exarnined,amply
he doseinjected.Once again,
the confirrns the perspectitethat rvehaveadopted.This sentencesunttttarisesthe con-
criterion and thoseobtained
by vincing effectsproduced by each sentellcein paragraprh5. "Les activités décrites
/') that Til.F is present. \\,e h sy p o t h é t i q u e sa t t e n d u e sd e l a
have p l u s h a u t ( . . . ) c o r r e s p o r l d e nat u x c a r i r c t é r i s t i c l u e
ight be called',expériences,'/
rx- neurohurneur TRF" / TÀc octit'itiesdcscribeddbot'c... correspondto the hypothcti-
in the laboratory,with animals, TRF ( p. 2, l. 13). The circleis closed;
expectedof the neurosecretiott
cal chttracteristics
e; that rr'ould take too lor-rg victory is achieved.The nalne TRF norv designates a distinct object in the minds of
and
rh -5setsforth ,,tests,"in
the liter_ readersand rivals. Eight yearslater,its conteltt ivill changeonce again,and the name
re conrplicatedby the absence
of

T è c h n o s t y l ev o l . i 6 , n o
I Hiver l0(X) Technos$'le\bl. 16,No. I 1000\\Iinter
 130 The Rlretoricof Science l: urro Latclttr allcl Paolo Fabbri

TRF r'villdesignatePyroglu-His-Pro-NH2.
The narneof the rrrainauthor (referringttr .:rr.rlaketted"cotrPetence," ill the
both art individual and a group) is so firrrlv attachedtti the trvo chnngesin the signified . . r . r ni t i l t i v e\ c i c l l e e sd' e f il t c s c . t
entity that it achieves
a sort of irnnrortality. . n r ( ) r ep r o p e r l yp h i l o s o p h i c a l
Hou'ever,the article clu'r-lls
neither on the totills that allorvthis assertionto be .:ili!'rellcebetrveenrhettlric and
credited ltor on a crorvof triunrph. Insteadit concludesrvith an operi.rtionof cau- ':rccliscovers polerrlicwheretlne
t i o n . O n l . 4 0 o f p . 2 , r v er e a c ti h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e sa r e" a t t r i b u a b l e sà u r r eo u p l u s i e u r s : r . t c r l p e r l t r r n l i l l l c et h' c t t t r t i o t lt
I attributoblt't() ()trt or rttort srrbstanccs.
substatrces" As soon as clc'clitis obtained, ' r t r ' ( ) r ' c - t id
câi sl c o u r s en l u s t b e t r l
i t i s a s s i g n e df u r t h e r l i r n i t a t i o n s .T h e a c t i v i t y i s a t t r i b u t a b l et o a s u b s t a n c en; o - . . 1 i r e c t 1s1o' c i o l o g i c i r lp' ( ) s e st h
w h e r e i s i t c l a i n t e d t h a t i t i s t h e s r . r b s t a n c teh: a t i s t h e f i r s t a c t o f c a u t i o n .l t i s .. icncee.xarnrines horr'itrvesttnen
attributable to "one or nr()resubstances":the secontlact oi caution. And lastly,in : thc-sociologvof sciencestucli
an aclnrirableaccurrulation of ntodalizations,lve read "sans pour autant prejuger ' . . ' c i t . r t t i s t se;p i s t e t n o l o gsvt u d i e
q u e l a s u b s t a n cT
e R F a i n s ir . n i s e n é v i d e n c ec o r r e s ç r o ncde r t a i n e n t e nat u n t é d i a t e u r . : r ct i u t e h a sc o m e t o s t u d l ' s c i e
pfrvsiologique"I n'itlrouttlrrrt:by prt.iudgingthat thc substanct,TRF
thusdernonstrated -:.(lit, where credit is accreditat
trrt'diator(p. 2, l.aa).There is no justificationftrr squan-
Itlirirdy i.. rlicfl.r',slo/rrtiarl : .rlrthority,and in the ftrrnl of
tlcrirrgthe untlcni.rblect t'dit earnetlby the Note by clainringthat *'hat hasbeenproverr ' ',\.rrdsthe stucl1'
of the accunlu
r n t h r ' i . t b o r a t t i r vi s ; t l s ot r u e ' i t tt h e b o d y .T h i s i s t h e t h i r d a c t o l c a u t i o n .C a u t i o n ,a s -r. t()nllsof credit.
$ e hilre kn otr.tt:iItcet he tirlle ()f the C reeks,is a strirtegvto []r()tectoneselIin aclvance
irgaittstattack.Ill the presentcilse,it is a discreetlessonin scientificcomportment for Postscript(Actesde Ia rec
those,suchas Shibuzrrrr,a,
rvho havebeenso rilshas to givethe cheniicalcomposition One of the authorsof the ar
of a substancethat I'radbarelybeen isolated. - . . i r h i c h B r u n o L a t o u rw a s g o
In this study ive har.eperftrrmed tu'o transfirrmations:an extensiot-r
and an ':.ldllrgs:
inversion.We have extendedto an irrticle in the exact sciencesan analysiswhose
concePtswere developedftrr literary texts,arndrvehaveshorvnthat scientiflclitera- aPProach:
. :: tt ti shistic
t u r e i s a p a r t o f l i t e r a t u r e t, h e r e b ye n c o u r a g i n go t h e r r e s e a r c h e rnso t t o b e i n t i n r i -
dated by the apparert inrpenetrirbilityof scientifictexts.Nonetheless, this analysis The irrticleis but a rlleansof
cAltnotbe extendedto the scientiflc"gc'nre"(if such exists),firl our stutli.dealsrvith i n itself.
but a sirtglearticle.The iuversion,or reversal,rvehave pertirrrtrecl
is this: Scienceis
alr,vays
studied in str-rgçul11iys
tenlls ils an activity orientecltorvard ltirture.We have \\'hilt ultilllltelv underlieste
reversedthis relationship,
consideringscientificpnlduction in ntore lltilitar,vternrs,asa
seriesof ttperationsoriented ttxvardsthe field of studi,,itseli identified rvith tl'ontier .\ctuirleffectsoccuroll othe
literature.In this perspective,nature provides the arlmunition u'herebyolfensive
strikesare rttatdeinvincible.We have introducedcharactersthat u'erethought to be to theinfonn
.:: l,lindness
: tlrcexperitnetlts:
impossibleon the theoreticalstage:Stratagem,Right, Cornbat,Desire,and, ntost of
all, Rhetoric.We have thus tirlfllleclone of the conditions of the sociologyof sci-
eltce- to rediscoverst>cietvrvithin rationalit,v,and, alone allong all the sciences, I)t'oplervill think that rvefill
disorderbeneathorder.As sinrplisticand limited asthe aboveanalvsisnrirvbe,it operrs :t.tteditl trvolinc-sBtlt lll ilc

threenelv reseitrchorientations.The first is directlv literarv:rvhatconstitutesa gclocl

or a bad scientiflcarticle?ln his evaluationseirch researcherirctualisesa hitherkr

T è c h n t l s t r ' l ev o l . 1 6 , n n I H i v e r 2 0 0 0 ,r'tvle \irl. l(r, No. I 1000 \\'inte

 The llhetoric of Science
I l l u n o L a t o u ra n d P a o l oF a b b r i

: narneof the main author (refèrring

to rularvlkeled"corrpetence,"in the linguisticsenseof the terrt-r, rvhich,rvithin the rnost
rchedki the trvo changesin
the signified degrees of The
cluality. secondorierltatioll
quantitativesciences,definescountless
a theory and how catr atl :rctuzrl
i\ ltore properly philosophical:lvhirt cc'rr-rstitutes
ie totals that allolv this assertion
to be tlifferencebettveenrhetoric and dernoustrationbe delineated?Ttr the extent that
c o n c l u d e sw i t h a n o p e r a t l o n
of cau_ ,rnediscoverspolemic whereone expecteddeduction,and productiorlrvhereolle ex-
s a r e" a t t r i b u a b l e à s une
ou plusieurs
pectedperformance,the ltotiolt that phikrsophershaveof scieltceand of their orvrl
r.lrccj. As soon Ascredit is
obtainecl,
t h e o r e t i c adl i s c o u r s er n u s tb e m o d i f i e d s u b s t a n t i a l l yT.h e t h i r d o r i e n t a t i o n ,w h i c h
, vi s a t t r i b u t a b l et o a s u b s r a n c en; o _
i s d i r e c t l v s o c i o l o g i c a lp, o s e st h e q u e s t i o no f s c i e n t i f i cc r e d i t .T h e e c o n o m i c so f
that is the first act of cautror.r.
lt is sciencee.xaltinesholv investmentof capital increasesprociuctittn;the Arllericar-rrllodel
secondact of cauti<tn.Ancl
lastlp in capital (authority) is accumulated
of the s6ciçlog1,of scielrcestuclieshttr'vs,vn-rbolic
rve read "sanspour autant
préjuger epistemologystudieshtlw argumentationis strengthenedor weakened.
'respond bv scientists;
certainenrentau rnédiateur
The tirle h1s conte b stud,vsciencefrorn the point of view of a gerreralecoltomyof
tt tlrcsubstanceTRFthrtstleruonstratetl
credit,where credit is accreditationand capital- in the ftlrn.rof ntoney,in the ftlrm
. There is no justificationfor
squan_ of authority,and in the form of data.This article is intended as a preparatorystep
ryclainting that rvhat
has beenpror.en
circulation,ar-rdtransformatioltof thesevari-
the study of the accunrulatiorr,
tgr,vards
the third act of cautior.r. Caution,as
ous fcrrnrsof credit.
trategvto protectoneselfin
advance
essonin scientificcornportrnent Postscript(Actesde Ia recherche)
fbr
. t sl ( ' g i v ct h e c h e r r r i c .cr o
l rrrposjtiolt
of the articlestudiedherehad severalobjectionsto the anal,v-
Or.reof the autl.rors
sis,rvhich llruno Latour rvasgood enough to serld us. They fàll under three nrain
rsfbrmatior-rs: an extensionand an
headings:
3 exact sciencesan analysis
lvhose
'e have
sholn that scientificlitera_ I tsfetishist i c apProaclt:
rther researchers not to be intinti_
flc texts.Nonetheless, this analysis The articleis but a nreansof transnrittinginfornrationand hasIro intportattlce
ch exists),fbr our study deals in itself.
rvith
har.eperftrrn-reciis this: Science
is
oriented torvard nature. We
have \\rhat ultimatel-vunderliestextssuchasthis is Natr'rre.
luction in nture urilitaryternts,
asa
uc11,, itself identified r,vithfr.ontier Actualeffectsoccllron otherbodies,llot on texts.
3 anlllunition rvherelryoflensive
tat'actersthat r,r,ere thought to be Its blindnessto the ùfonnatiort trat$înittedond to the concreteness
iht, Combat, Desire,anci,ntost of of the experiments:
nditions of the sociology
of sci_
r t l ,. t l , r r r e
i l l ) l 0 i l gi r l l t h e s e i e r r u e s , People will think that rve filled up fir'e pirgessaying u'hat could have been
he aboveanalysismay be,ir s t a t e d i n n v o l i r t e s .B u t i r t a c t u a ] f a c t , o u r t e x t i s f u l l o f i n f o r m a t i o n .
opens
literary:what constitutes
a good
lesearcheractualisesa hithertcr

T è c h n o s t y i ev o l . 1 6 , n , , I
Hirer 2000 \bl. 16,No. I 1000\\'inter
Tèchnosrt'le
t32 The Rhetoricof Science l l r u t t o L ; t t o u rr r r t dP i r o l t F
r .rbbri

If detailsof the protocolarenot given,it's not because

I'e aretrf ing to hide 7 I t s h o u l db e p o i n t e do u t t h a t t h
. t r t i c l e sA. c c o r d i n gt o t h e a u t h o
anything.lt is sinrplyulllecessar)'.
: c i e r r t i f il cu d i e n c es o t h . r ti t i . . r
t l t ei t t l i r r t t t . t t i o* ht ti c l t i ' n r i . ' i r
The resultsreportedarenot nterell"'sets
of h'ritings."It would be betterto call
8 T h e a r t i c l ec a nb e t e ; r da s l o n g i
them"sy'nrbols" or "languages."
The resultsarenrerelytrnrtslntedby
the integratedittto cold scienceit tr
( ...); rvehaveno otherrleirnsof obtainingtheseresults,
instruurents but the recreirtetlte historl' of the discil
actualeffectsareindependent. not lead or rereird,it can still be
With all of the datatogether,
rveareableto
accuratethan "read."with the .S
constructa coDrplete
and coherentpicture. I ' e e r tu . e d l r t d l o l h o r t l , r r r gT. h
i n a r t i c l e sp r o d u c e do u t s i d et h e
Itsnaivelycynicalondpolemicolvisiottof scientific
strategies
and Elevenarticlesctlnfln.nthirt this
contlrmation comesnot otllv fl'
underest
imatiort of epistemological obstacles
: c o m p e t i t o r sS. e v e n: r r t i c l e cs o n
seeksto distinguishitself from.
Er.erything
is reducedto personalntotivation,asif scientists
rveresneakyand leasons,onlv otrecitesa detail t
60ml Ih" / rntc LtJ50 60 ttrl/ lt (
connir.ing.\\re areconductinga stud,r.,
not pla,viltgir galne.
9 F o r . r r e c e n tp r e s e n t a t i o inn F r e
a r t i c l ei s i n t e r e s t i r lign t h a t i t w :
We discoYer,
we do r.rotcreate.Frortrtillte to tirne,nert'relationshipsantong
and evetrgivesdifferent namesI
ideasaresuggested.
\\'e build things.
l 0 T h e e p o n y m( e . g ." t h e C o n t P t o
rnodaliz-ations. The tbrmer repr
Horvlongdoesit taketo eradicate
ir rnisconception?
Horvntany)'earsare i s a r n i r r ko f c r i t i c i s n o
t r derisio
necessrrrv
kr denrolish,
stepb1.step,
a tin,vbut persistellt
nristake? e r p e r i m e n t si"d e n t i f l e sa n r e r e
G H R H . T h e g e n i t i v ei n t h i s c a s

Notes I I Evenyealslater it is possibleto

t D e s I i 1 s1 h ad o t t t i t t . r t tIt' e r ( e l ) t i
T h e o r i g i n i r lF r e n c ha r t i c l ei s r e p r o d u c e dr,v i t h s p e c i apl e r m i s s i o nf i ' o m t h e e d i t o ra n d
unlike a rvork of art rçhich elirr
a u t h o r so , n p a g e s8 7 t o 1 0 6o f t h i s T c c l r r o . ; t . i1s,s/ cu el.l e . r d e rs h o u l db e a $ ' a r et h i r tL a t o u r
n r o d a l i z a t i o nusP .
and Fabbri'sarticle inclr,rdes retèrences to two other Frenchtextsto be firr,rndlt the end of
' '- This te\t is reproducedor.rpage
t h e i r a r t i c l eo n p a g e sI 0 7 t o I L l . I N o t e t i . o l l t h e e d i t o r s ]
- - T I r i st e x t i s r e p r o d u c e d
o n p . l g e s1 0 7k ) I l 0 o f t h i s i s s u eo f ' I c ' i l r r r o - ; t ) y ' r ' . I I T l t i . r e n t . r r ku, l l i i l l i ' t u r l , t o i t
to be undert.rken.
I Seethechssicstudiesb1'D.deSollaPlice(1965);ct..rrecentapplicationinC.Nlullins
(I97l).
References
I \ \ ' i t h t h e n o t a b l ee r c e p t i o no f G u s f l e l d( I 9 7 6) . H o r v e v e rt h' . i s s t u d yd e a l sr v i t h o n e o f t h e
" s o f t "s c i e u c eisn r i l a t r n gt h e s t y l ei t t a k e st o b e t h a t o i t h e " h a l d " s c i e n c e sH.e n c et h e E. ( 1970).Essais
Ilenyeniste, dc li
a u t h o r ' sc o n c l u s i o r rrsv, h i c ha r ee n t i r e l l t, l i i f e r e r rftl o n t o r r r s .
Seuil.
. l \ \ ' e r e f e rt o t h e c l a s s i cs t u t l i e sb t ' G e n e t t e( 1 9 7 1 ) B , n t ]G r e i m l s ( 1 9 ( 1 6 ) .
, e r r v e n i s t(e1 9 7 0 ) a
: i r u r d i e u ,P .( 1 9 7 6 ) L
. e c h a n l Ps t
4 S e eG r e i n r a s( 1 9 7 6 ) .

5 A r e m a r k a b l e r a n r p l eo f t h i s p h e n o n t e n o ni s g i v e ni n N l L r l k i r v . r nEdd g e( 1 9 7 - l )F
. ora
c o r n p l e t e ldl i f f e l e n tp e r s p e c t i v e
se, eF o u c a u l t( 1 9 6 6 ) . L h u b i r . rD, . & N l o i t r a ,S . ( 1 9 7 5 ) I.
alternirtiveto citatiotl cour
6 S e e i,n p a r t i c u l a rZ, u c k e r n r a r r{nI 9 6 8) .

T e c h n o s t v l ev o l . l ( r , n o I H i v e r 2 ( X ) t ) . . l r n o s h ' l e\ t r l . 1 6 ,N o . I 2 0 0 0\ \ ' i n t e
 The Ilhetoric of Scierrce
Ilruno Latour and PaoloFabbri 133

rot because
rvearetrl,irrgto hide 7 l t s h o u l db e p o i r r t e do u t t h i t t h e C o n t p t r rso r r l t i -pst r b l i s ho n l y r e s e . t r cnho t e sa n d n o t
t o t h e a u t h o r ,t h e s en o t e sl r a v en ( ) o t h e r p u r p o s et h ; r n" t o i r l t r i g u et h e
i l r t i c l e sA. c c o r d i r r g
s c i e n t i f i ca u d i e n c es o t h l t i t i s a l n r o s tc e r t a i ni t i s c o n v i n c e da n d r v i l lt e l e r r h o nteo ù s kt i ) r
'rvritings." t h e i n f b r n r r t i o nr r h i c h i s n r i s s i n gi n s u c ha s l t o r tr e p o r t . "
It woulclbe betterto call
are nrt rely t rart slnted by,tlrc 8 T h e a r t i c l ec l r r l r e r e a dl s l o n g a s i t i s l o c a t e di r t t h e f i o r . r t i e rosf t h e d i s c i p l i n eO . n c ei t i s
fobtainingtheseresults,but integratedinto cold scienceit no longer needbe re.rd,exceptto veritv nrethodologies, to
the r e c r e i l t teh e h i s l o r , yo f t h e d i s c i p l i n eo, r t o e v a l u a t e t l r ep r o l t r e s m s a d e .H o r v e v e re,v e r ri f i t i s
re datatosether,
rvelre ableto r r o tr e a do r r e r e a t li,t c a n s t i l l b e c i t e d .T h e t e r n r s" u s e d "o r " t a k e na p i r r t "m i g h t b e m o r e
accuratethan "re.rd."\\'ith tlre .Sr'iclccLitorion lttdcx,\r'ecan i)ssess bl rvhom this article has
b e e nu s e da n d f i r l h o w l o n g .T h e l e s u l t sa r ea s f i r l l o r v si :t h a sb e e nc i t e d4 0 t i m e ss i n c e1 9 6 . 1
i t r a r t i c l e sp r o d u c e do u t s i d et l . r eg r o u pa n d l , l t i n l e si n a r t i c l e sb y r n e m l r e ros f t h e g r o u p .
r of scientificstrategies
etnrl E l e v e na r t i c l e sc o n f i r n rt h a t t h i s o n e r v a sr n d e e dt h e f i r s t t o d e m o n s t r a t T e R F a c t i v i t r 't;h i s
tacles: conflrnrationcomesl.rotonlv firrr fbundersof the paradigm but alsofrom direct
c o r r p e t i t o r sS. e v e na l t i c l e sc o n f l r n rl l r e t e x t ,b u t c i t e i t ; r l o r r gr v i t h t e r t sb y a u t h o r st h e t e x t
s e e k st o d i s t i n g u i s hi t s e l fi i o m . A n r o n gt h e t i v ei l u t h ( ) r sn h o c i t et h e t e r t f r r rt e c h n i c . r l
t , a s i f s c i e n t i s t s r v e r es n e a k y
and r e a s o n so,n l l ' o n e c i t e sa d e t a i lt h . r tc o u l db e c o r l s t r u e da s i n f b m r t i o n , t h e " d é b i td e 5 0 -
aving a gante. 6 0 n r l / h " / r n r c o J5 0 6 0 û t l/ h ( p a g sl , l i n e 2 9 ) .

9 ForarecentpresentationinFrenchoftheproblenr,seeSchallvirndKastin(i976).This
i n t e , n e r v r e l a t i o l s h i p . sa r n o r r g i n t h a t i 1w . r sr v r i t t e nb v t h e g r o L r P c' so m p e t i t o ri.t t e l l sa d i f l è r e n ts t o r r , ,
a r t r c i ei s i n l e r e s t i n g
.rnd evengivestliffelent llanlesto sr,rbstances.

l 0 T h e e p o r 4 ' m( e . g . " t h eC o r r p t o n e f È c t " ) m u s t n o t b e c o n f u s e dr v i t h p e r s i s t e n t

ption? Horv lltalty n t o d a l i z a t i o nT s .h e f b r m e r l e p r e s e n ttsh e h e i g h to f p r e s t i g ei n t h e s c i e n c e sw,h i l et h e l a t t e r
) , e a r sa r e ' s H R H d i d n o t p r o v et o b e a c t i v ej n o u r
i s i r r r a r k o f c r i t i c i s mo r d e r i s i o nT . h u s ," S c h a l l r , G
p e r s l s t e l t tt r rj s t a k e ?
e x p e r i n r e n t si d" e n t i f l e sa n r e r e l vl o c l l s u b s t r n c et h i r th a sn o c l , r i mt o l r e i t i e n t i f i e di r s
G H I { H . T h e s e n i t i v ei n t h i s c l s e i s l u r a r ko f d i s d , r i n .

I I Evenvearslater it is possibleto rc-openprotocol books rnd l'e-calculate the rarvdat.r.

r a lp e r r l i s s i o nt j . o n t h e e t l i t o r Despitell.redonrinant perception,ir scientificassertionis nevertl-eeof its rnodalizatiorrs,
arrd
. R e , r d e lssh o u l db e a w J r et l t r t u n l i k ei r r v o r ko f ; r r t r v h i c he l i n r i r r , r t ei tss m o d a l i z i r t i o n a
s ,n d i d e o l o g rr' ,v h i c hc o i ' e r si t s
Latour
F r e n c ht e x t sk r b e t b u n t l a t n r o d . t l i z r t t i o rut p
s.
t h e e n c lo t
torsl
"" T h i s t e x t i s r e p r o d u c e do n p l r e s I l 2 t o I 1 , 1o f t h i s i s s u eo f 1 ' c c l n t o s t y l t : .
;sLreof 7i'c/trro-st1,/c.
1l T h i s r e m a r k ,r v h i c hi s f à r t o o i n s u l l i c i e n t hn u a n c e di,s i n t e n d e dr . n e r e ltvo i n d i c a t ea s t u d y
. l r e . e t ) t, t p p l i c . l t i o n
in C. r\lultrns t o b e u n d e tt , t l e n .

' \ . e r t, h l s s t u d t , d e a l s References
r v i t ho n eo f t h e
t r t h e" h i r d " s c i e n c e sH.e n c e
the
E. (1970).Ëssrris
Renver.riste, r/c lingristitytegénéralelYol. I ). Pirris:Éditiorrsdu
Seuil.
r e D r s t(e1 9 7 0 )a, n d G r e i r t r aI s
l9(16).
P.( 1976).Lechar.npr
lJrrurdieu, scientifique.
Actesr/r'lo reclrcrclu'ett
scietrc$
sociales,
I r \ l u l k a ya n d E d g ei l 9 7 . j ) .
2-3.
Fol a
Chubin,D. & Nloitra,S.( 1975).Contentanalysis
of references:adjunctor
alternativeto citationcounting.Socitlstutlics 5 (1) -123-.1
of scistca, 1.

T è c h n o s t y l ev o l . 1 6 , n "
I Hiver 2000 T è c h n o s t v l\ et r l . 1 6 ,N o . I 1 0 0 0\ \ ' i r t t e t
 l-r{ The Ilhetoric of Science t.c;line lSeaudet

Foucault,M. (1966). Lesntotsct /esclloses.

Paris:Gallinrard. La vulgarisation scie
Genette,G. (1972).Figrrcs,l/1.Paris:Editionsdu Seuil.

Greinras,A. (1976).Sénriotiqtrc htrnuincs.pirr-is:

et sci(ilces Editionsdu SeLril. Ijaffaire Sokal: gran
l. (1976),The literary rhetoric of science.Anrericorrsociological
Gr,rsfleld, ret'ietv,17 I' interdisciplinarité
(1).

Latour, Il., & S. \Voolgar. (1986). Laborotorylit'e:the constructi()no.f scienti.fic

fncts,
sccondetlition Princeton,Nl: PrincetonUnir.ersityPress.
t),:lint'Beoudcf
Mulkay',M. l. & Edge,D. O. ( 1973).Cognitive,technicaland socialfactorsin the L.ttitrr sité de Sherbrttoke
emergenceof radio astronorny.lnformatiortsw les sciences 12 (6), 25-
socioles,
71.

C. (1972).The clevelopmentof a nervscientiflcspecialty.L.Iintrya,10.

N.'lullins,
into the c
This articlc dt'lYes
Schallyand Kastin (1976).Leshorrrones de I'hypothalarnus.lrl rechsche,63.
frcllctl bYAnrcrtcot
scholars
cleSollaPrice,D. (1965).Little scicnce-big
scicnce.
Nel,York: Columbia University ol'Sokrr/ontl Brictnorrtsre e
Press. dild rcPr
arc thc res1onses

Zuckerrnann,H. ( 1968).Patternsof nirrneordering .llnong authorsof scientific in threc

Jwdont, crtrrtrtirrctl
papers.Anrcricun.iorrrnalo.fsociologl',71
(3). nnd polenrics,tlrcarticlebrt
lrt.f
ond scientificdiscourse.
satisfactorilYand tt
research
c0nlroycrs)'.

En 1996,Alan Sokal,Ph.vs
'
J.urr lir revueaméricaineSociol
-lotvnrd
::c.. a TransformativeHe
' : , ,nt iercs: verstllle herrrrdrreuti

. c r . l r t i ( l c ,I ' u u t e u rr f f i r r r l a i t '.
ù{ucl < il existeun l-nondeext
.:rt[;pendatrtes de k)Lltindividu e
, . , , n f l u l ' e c " l n " r c r l i t e "p
q u
:,,nclarnentalelttent une constru
I'iruteurremette
:.ri\()nnelllellts,
.:niret'selleexprirrréepirr Nelvtt
. : l r r . t , ' r i r ' i t éS.o t ti t r g u t t t e t t t . t t i
' : , , n sd e p r h i l o s o p h e tsd ' i n t e l l e c

:: .r-r\quelslesauteursPubliésd'

Tèchnosn'le\.o1.16,no I Hiver 2000 \bl. 16,No.I 2000\\'inte

.. . imos$'le